Permafrost Holds Twice as Much GHGs as Previously Thought: Over 1500 Billion Tons of CO2 and Methane
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 09.13.08
Image from jurvetson
Following on the heels of a recently published study in the journal Nature Geoscience, which estimated that Arctic permafrost could hold 60% more organic carbon than previously thought, a team of scientists from Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has found that the planet's permafrost layers -- comprising an area that covers a fifth of Earth's land mass -- store twice as much methane and carbon dioxide as previously believed.
The results of their study, published in the journal Bioscience, state that permafrost layers located at high altitudes contain over 1500 billion tons of CO2 and methane, or twice the amount of GHG currently present in the atmosphere.
Image from Sergei Zimov/CSIRO
Release of even a fraction could greatly increase future temperature rise
While he said it was too early to start making dire predictions about future melting rates, Pep Canadell, a CSIRO atmospheric scientist who co-authored the paper, warned that: “With temperatures in the higher latitudes estimated to rise by as much as eight degrees by the end of this century, the world could experience a major melt of large tracts of permafrost in Canada, Russia, Alaska, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Greenland”.
Consequences could be worsened by positive feedback loop
The great fear among scientists, of course, is that a sudden release of methane and CO2 from the thawing permafrost could perpetuate a dangerous positive feedback cycle in which rising atmospheric GHG levels could accelerate climate change, resulting in more melting and, thus, more emissions. What is clear, in the wake of this and the Nature study, is that climate researchers will have to rejigger their models -- which could lead to some sobering revisions in emission targets.
Methane: a potential energy source?
Aside from simply slowing the release of GHG emissions (easier said than done), there is the possibility that some of that trapped methane could be harnessed as an alternative source of energy. Though risky (methane is roughly 21-23 times more potent a GHG than CO2), Japan, Canada and a few other countries have been working on finding economical ways to safely extract the methane hydrates from wells in the permafrost. For now, however, it's probably best to focus on the main issue at hand: drastically reducing our current emission production.
Via ::Climate Change Blog: Permafrost Perma-Emergency (blog)
More about permafrost
::60% More Greenhouse Gases Trapped in Permafrost Than Previously Thought
::Melting Arctic Ice Increases Permafrost Thaw Farther Inland Than Previously Thought
::Researchers Extract Permafrost-Locked Methane from Gas Hydrates, Potentially Paving Way for Large New Energy Source
Lauren Bush Debuts Sustainable Fashion Line
|
India's Mining Boom: Tribal Groups, Poor & Environment Losing Out
|
This is important, but it shouldn't affect how we act. The level of urgency needed was already high. We used to think the ice held vastly more GHG than mankind has ever emitted; now we know it may be twice as much as that.
I keep hearing about this, but there's never any mention of where these higher levels came from. Doesn't this mean we've had more methane and CO2 in the atmosphere in the ancient past than was previously thought? We definitely still need to monitor and limit emissions from industry and society, but this could be a clue that we're not as far out of balance as recent studies have stated. Maybe this means the world can take it.
Dino farts!
Jacob:
The source of the methane and CO2 is the decay of the remains of prior life, both animal and plant. These were laid down over eons. They were then preserved in the permafrost.
Yes, the world will survive a large release of CO2/methane from the permafrost. The world does not, however, need its current inventory of humanity to survive. It is not at all clear that the world will be able to provide the food necessary to feed a human population in excess of 6 bilion.
I have seen reasonable but pessimistic estimates that in 100 years the world population may be 10% of its current level.
Bill
What this means is that they were underestimating the seriousness of the problem.
Melting of permafrost is looking far more like the "climate tipping point" mechanism than was previously guessed at.
Meanwhile soon to be vice president Sara Palen thinks global warming is not our doing, and wants "more drilling for oil" as our path to her future.
Scary when political leaders refuse to accept the evidence they see with their own eyes.
Mrs. Palin can see Russia from her house but she can't see what Drill Drill Drill is already doing to the Earth?
Another good reason to leave ANWR alone? Yes.